Skip to main content

tv   Roger Stone Says Special Counsel Should Be Fired  CSPAN  September 27, 2017 3:11am-3:26am EDT

3:11 am
manager, speaks to a group called black americans for a better future. his remarks will air at 12:30 eastern. >> roger stone and advisor to president trump visited capitol rnll to give swo testimony and to the role russia played in the presidential election. according to politico, he brought the atricure kyle cheney writes, roger stone finally came face-to-face with the top democratic investigator. and, we hear from mr. cohen -- mr. stone and congressman schiff.
3:12 am
>> here we go. >> good afternoon. my name is grant smith. i am an attorney for roger stone. and ouris my cocounsel client, roger stone. we started at about 9:40 this morning and went to about 12:30 this afternoon. we took one break. members of the committee took their turns asking all the questions they had, and we answered all their questions. roger testified truthfully, honestly, and without hesitation. we spent a lot of time preparing for this.
3:13 am
i do not believe the committee asked us in a questions that we were not prepared for. they are things you have widely reported in the past. they are things that would have been expected in this investigation. the committee is doing their job i believe clearly. everybody wants to get to the bottom of this. they want to get to the bottom of it in different ways, but they want to get to the bottom of it. and mr. stone is here to offer what he can, and we are happy to have done our part to do it. i believe the feedback we got was that mr. stone was candid and mr. stone was jovial and gave context to everything he has done. so with that, i am going to turn it over to mr. stone, who will make a statement and then answer your questions. thank you. mr. stone first of all, i wanted
3:14 am
: to give you an opportunity -- >> could you step up to the microphone? mr. stone >> certainly. : we had a very frank exchange. i answered all the questions. i made the case that the accusation that i knew about john podesta's email hack in advance was false. that i knew about the content and source of the wikileaks disclosures regarding hillary clinton was false. and that my exchange with someone claiming to be gucifer 2.0, the timing was benign and innocuous. i had an opportunity to discuss things members of the committee had said about me. i think this was productive. i expressed my view that i am aware of no evidence whatsoever
3:15 am
of collusion by the russian state or anyone in the trump campaign. or anyone associated with donald trump. and i reiterated my view that in my opinion, donald trump has the potential to be both a truly great and transformative president. i would be happy to take your questions. >> are you going to be indicted? mr. stone: >> i believe his attorneys informed my attorneys of that. >> are you aware of any other type of potential legal action? >> i am not. >> have you been in contact with [indiscernible] mr. stone: i have not. i have never heard from mr. mueller's office or the fbi. i only had an initial contact on the senate intelligence committee asking us to preserve records. >> [indiscernible]
3:16 am
stone: no. they seemed to know neither when nor what the charge may be. >> how much did the questions focus on your discussion through an intermediary with mr. assange, as well as the discussion with gucifer? mr. stone: a fair amount. a substantial amount. asked it republicans who the questions? democrats? mr. stone: democrats. >> did you have any other communication with gucifer. mr. stone: the conversation i believe took place between august 15 and september 9. many months after the publication by wikileaks of the dnc material, meaning collusion with gucifer in the hacking and release of that material would be impossible unless i owned a time machine, which i do not.
3:17 am
the version of is it your view that russians had nothing to do with the hack of the dnc? that is my belief. i subscribe to the view in "the nation" magazine a few weeks ago. the computer science seems to indicate an inside job. so, i do not know whether the dnc was hacked. i do not know at all. i don't know that it was hacked by russians. on the basis of this report, i believe it was an inside job, meaning the data was downloaded to a thumb drive and spirited out of the building. i would point out that craig murray, who is a british diplomat has said, for the record, that he received information from the dnc on a thumb drive and passed it to wikileaks. >> to you and the president still communicate? have you spoken with him at all
3:18 am
about this? mr. stone: i have not. i'm not sure if he was aware i was testifying today although he may have read in today's "washington post." >> [indiscernible] mr. stone we have no information : on that. there is no current schedule. i would certainly be willing to do so on a voluntary basis. i would require no immunity. i would welcome the opportunity. pardon me? i have not. >> when have you last spoken to the president? mr. stone: recently. i'm going to decline to characterize it. it was not about this investigation. >> was there anything you walked away feeling like [indiscernible] stone: no, i would not say so. there were certainly some partisan clashes in some differences of opinion but nothing that made me uncomfortable. >> [indiscernible]
3:19 am
mr. stone i would prefer not to. : i do not think members of the committee by some of my claims -- buy some of my claims, but they have no evidence to the contrary. >> [indiscernible] to apologize to you? mr.: -- mr. stone: i did not because the length of my testimony which included that went over and i was only a 45 minutes. yes. i'm not holding my breath. >> did you decline to say who your intermediaries were? mr. stone: yes, i did. that is the only question i declined to answer. >> your opinion of the committee, hasn't it changed at all? mr. stone: well, mr. caster seems like a very nice guy but beyond that my opinion has not largely changed. >> [indiscernible] when you decline to id your --
3:20 am
mr. stone yes. : they would like me to do so. i told them i would consider it. now, the reason i am not submitting that name is because the intermediary is a journalist and our conversation was off the record. i am an opinion journalist, he is a journalist. i am not going to burn somebody i spoke to off the record. if you releases me, if he allows me to release it, i would be happy to give that to the committee. i'm actually going to try to do that. statements before or after, you said that members of the committee smeared your character. do you think this was a serious exercise? no, i think it was an entirely political exercise. look, they make the charges against you in a public forum for maximum coverage for their campaign or reelection. then they only allow you to respond behind closed doors and they won't even allow the release of a transcript. it really put you in an
3:21 am
extraordinarily unfair advantage. in the case of michael caputo, he attended the session, answered all questions truthfully and then congresswoman smear -- i mean spear, misaligned him. said he perjured himself. >> do you think the president should fire bob mueller? mr. stone: yes, because he auditioned or should i say interviewed for the job of the -- fbi director the day mr. comey resigned or was fired, excuse me. that led to a conflict. i have not. but i have written that, i have said it. i have written it in the daily caller. the president may be aware. >> what was the disposition of the republicans? did they argue on your behalf? mr. stone: no, i think they were trying to do their job and write
3:22 am
a fair report. there were some clashes between the republicans and democrats about the appropriateness of some questions. but overall, it was pretty collegial. mr. gowdy asked me directly if i had any knowledge of russian collusion, collusion with any member of the trump campaign, the trump family, the trump organization, trump supporters, and i said no. esther schiff said, we could ask the same question of vladimir putin. mr. gowdy took exception to that. is it your opinion that if anyone is convicted [indiscernible] you can trust their conclusions? stone: i believe i was
3:23 am
treated fairly. i will reserve judgment until i see the report. but it was completely professional and everybody was courteous. i have no complaints about anyone's conduct. >> have you spoken with mr. manna fort? -- with mr. manna afort? mr. stone yes. : he believes as i do, it is outrageous. they not only have 2 files but photographed all of his suits. i cannot imagine for what reason. english tailoring is always better than italian tailoring at leased for my body shape. >> [indiscernible] stone: i don't, and neither does he, at least based on my brief conversation with him. [indiscernible] mr. stone because i think what : is happening here is what
3:24 am
special counsel will try to manufacture a crime and then say, manafort, we will not prosecute you for this if you simply admit you were colluding with the russians and donald trump knew any -- new everything. otherwise, bear false witness against the president. i have known paul manafort for over 30 years, and i do not believe he will do that. he is not going to lie, and that would be a lie. >> you're not familiar with his tactics? mr. stone certainly not. :i have no idea what charge he could be indicted on, or whether that charge is provable, fair. i just don't know. >> [indiscernible] mr. stone: there was no discussion on coming back but i would certainly be open to it under the right circumstances. >> [indiscernible] mr. stone i have not.
3:25 am
:i don't know general flynn. anybody else? thank you all. member isking expected to come out.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on